Supreme Court.......STRIKES DOWN...Defence of Marriage Act !

[Ms Tree]

 
 
Umm...Are you even the least bit serious here? Of course "There is no history" you moron. This is newly invented nonsense for the Nation.

No you are the moron. There is no history so what are you basing your demise of marriage on?

 

[Ms Tree]

Same sex marriage is now legal in 13 states, soon to be 14. Has there been any influx of law suits in any of those states?

 

[EastUS1]

No you are the moron. There is no history so what are you basing your demise of marriage on?

 
 
"Good point", since there's only about 5,000 years of recorded history to view, none of which, within any great empire, grandly indulges same-sex "marriage", but keep living in Fantasyland as it suits you to do. 🙂
 
Sigh!...Perhaps you're indeed a true genius that's just light years ahead of these sorry times though. Perhaps you're right. Let it be now proclaimed throughout the land that same-sex "marriage" should rule the day, and that we should form our frontline fighting forces from women and gays! After all; only a million+ or so of the normal American men have gotten themselves killed for well over 200 years now! That's clearly as unfairly prejudical and offensive as it can get! I say we finally give those a break and much-needed rest! I mean: Don't let us be the least bit shy here. Let's go completely politically correct to the max! 🙂 There's been huge, historical "injustice" in largely letting only white hetero males be killed. Let's now fix that! Hmm...to make proper "reperations"..we should make it so that untill at least a million people that are non-hetero-white-males are killed, that none of that former group be even allowed to serve. "Affirmative Action" and all/etc.
 
I'd cheerfully and generously go so far as to exempt such as yourself from any medical "prejudice" against your service being accepted. Feel perfectly free to marry even a moose and then lead the next attack. 😉
 
Must exit now, lest I laugh myself sick. 🙂

 

[southwind]

ame="southwind" post="1036118" timestamp="1383800694"]

Two seperate issues. The conservative right want to ban same sex marrige. Cite me one proposed law that seeks to compel a religious institution to conduct same sex marriage. Such a law would be in clear violation of the COTUS.

And one would think forcing religions to provide contraceptives, against their beliefs, would be a clear violation of the COTUS too but........

Also, permitting same sex marriages only further pushes the sanctity and institution of marriage further into the sport/game category!

 

[Dog Wonder]

Permitting same sex marriages only further pushes the sanctity and institution of marriage further into the sport/game category!

Are you quoting Newt Gingrich?

 

[Ms Tree]

And one would think forcing religions to provide contraceptives, against their beliefs, would be a clear violation of the COTUS too but........

Also, permitting same sex marriages only further pushes the sanctity and institution of marriage further into the sport/game category!

It would be a clear violation of the COTUS. Good thing its not happening.

Sanctity? Fifty percent failure rate is showung sanctity? Mariage where a woman was property does that show sanctity?

 

[delldude]

It would be a clear violation of the COTUS. Good thing its not happening.

Sanctity? Fifty percent failure rate is showung sanctity? Mariage where a woman was property does that show sanctity?

 
Abomination 2013

 

[Ms Tree]

 
 
"Good point", since there's only about 5,000 years of recorded history to view, none of which, within any great empire, grandly indulges same-sex "marriage", but keep living in Fantasyland as it suits you to do. 🙂
 
Sigh!...Perhaps you're indeed a true genius that's just light years ahead of these sorry times though. Perhaps you're right. Let it be now proclaimed throughout the land that same-sex "marriage" should rule the day, and that we should form our frontline fighting forces from women and gays! After all; only a million+ or so of the normal American men have gotten themselves killed for well over 200 years now! That's clearly as unfairly prejudical and offensive as it can get! I say we finally give those a break and much-needed rest! I mean: Don't let us be the least bit shy here. Let's go completely politically correct to the max! 🙂 There's been huge, historical "injustice" in largely letting only white hetero males be killed. Let's now fix that! Hmm...to make proper "reperations"..we should make it so that untill at least a million people that are non-hetero-white-males are killed, that none of that former group be even allowed to serve. "Affirmative Action" and all/etc.
 
I'd cheerfully and generously go so far as to exempt such as yourself from any medical "prejudice" against your service being accepted. Feel perfectly free to marry even a moose and then lead the next attack. 😉
 
Must exit now, lest I laugh myself sick. 🙂

Yes, 5,000 years of history where women were nothing more than property to be exchanged for power and money.  The idea of marriage for love is a fairy new advent that expedited the downfall of traditional marriage that you so love.  
 
Things change.  We no longer walk, from village to village,  we no longer use horses to travel long distances, our cars no longer have cranks.  We have pluming and electricity. The US no longer sanctions the ownership of humans.
 
Marriage has changed and will continue to change.  I married my wife at a B&B in S Texas with a JP.  That was probably quite rare 40 or 50 years ago. My parents got married by a JP and were married for 57 years till my mom passed away.
 
This is all immaterial to the issue at hand which is the law.  The 14th amendment states quite clearly that laws must apply equally to all.  Marriage endured the changes over the past 5,000 years and there is nothing to support the silly notion that allowing same sex marriage will change the sanctity (sorry, I still have a hard time keeping a straight face with that word) of marriage.
 
Your crying about the demise of marriage is the same tired argument that was used when inter-racial marriages were allowed, blacks and women were allowed in the military, women were allowed to be in law enforcement, basically every change that made the white male property owner share their sand box with the other children.  
 
And again with the animals.  Do you have an animal fetish we are not aware of?  Ewes and moose (and all animals) do not have the legal right to consent.  Why do you always resort to animal statements?  Is your argument that weak?
 
How in your world does a medical exemption equal prejudice?  
 


prejudice
 









prej·u·dice
  [prej-uh-dis]  Show IPA noun, verb,prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing.

noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or withoutknowledge, thought, or reason.

2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable orunfavorable.

3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of ahostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

4.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudiceis never-ending.

5.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudiceof the majority.

 

[Ms Tree]

International Museum of women

 
By marriage, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything.  - William Blackstone
 

 

Married European women could not buy or sell, except in the capacity of "deputy husbands." They could not engage in any financial transactions in their own right. Their dilemma is epitomized by the case of Millicent Garrett Fawcett, an English woman whose purse was stolen by a young thief in the 1870s. Already a leader of the movement for woman suffrage, she was surprised to hear in court that the charge against the thief was "stealing from the person of Millicent Fawcett a purse containing £1, 18s. 6d., the property of Henry Fawcett." In her memoirs, Millicent wrote, "I felt as if I had been charged with theft myself."
 

 
 
This is part of your '5,000 years of tradition'.  Marriage has changed quite a bit.  It will change some more.

 

[southwind]

 

Yes, 5,000 years of history where women were nothing more than property to be exchanged for power and money.  The idea of marriage for love is a fairy new advent that expedited the downfall of traditional marriage that you so love.  
 
Things change.  We no longer walk, from village to village,  we no longer use horses to travel long distances, our cars no longer have cranks.  We have pluming and electricity. The US no longer sanctions the ownership of humans.
 
Marriage has changed and will continue to change.  I married my wife at a B&B in S Texas with a JP.  That was probably quite rare 40 or 50 years ago. My parents got married by a JP and were married for 57 years till my mom passed away.
 
This is all immaterial to the issue at hand which is the law.  The 14th amendment states quite clearly that laws must apply equally to all.  Marriage endured the changes over the past 5,000 years and there is nothing to support the silly notion that allowing same sex marriage will change the sanctity (sorry, I still have a hard time keeping a straight face with that word) of marriage.
 
Your crying about the demise of marriage is the same tired argument that was used when inter-racial marriages were allowed, blacks and women were allowed in the military, women were allowed to be in law enforcement, basically every change that made the white male property owner share their sand box with the other children.  
 
And again with the animals.  Do you have an animal fetish we are not aware of?  Ewes and moose (and all animals) do not have the legal right to consent.  Why do you always resort to animal statements?  Is your argument that weak?
 
How in your world does a medical exemption equal prejudice?  
 
prejudice  







prej·u·dice   [prej-uh-dis[/size]]  Show IPA noun, [/size]verb,[/size]prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing.

noun[/size]
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or withoutknowledge, thought, or reason.

2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable orunfavorable.

3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of ahostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

4.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudiceis never-ending.

5.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudiceof the majority.

 
Now we're going back 5000 years? Now that's what I call "Living in the past!"

 

[Ms Tree]

 
 
Now we're going back 5000 years? Now that's what I call "Living in the past!"

Pay attention. East is the one who brought up the 5, 000 year tradition BS. I agree, he is living in the past.

 

[EastUS1]

Things change.  We no longer walk, from village to village,  we no longer use horses to travel long distances, our cars no longer have cranks. 

 
"Things" indeed are always changing. Not-so-much human nature. "we no longer use horses to travel long distances, our cars.."...? So...Why then do we not refer to "our cars" as horses anymore? Why even employ the term Marriage anymore?
 
I note you're happy with offering up a definition of "Prejudice" (as if anyone disagreeing with your tripe must needs be), but you've yet to provide anything even approaching a definition of Marriage. Care to now, finally make that effort?

 

[EastUS1]

Pay attention. East is the one who brought up the 5, 000 year tradition BS. I agree, he is living in the past.

 
I merely noted 5,000 or so years of even at all recorded history as available for reasonable study. You may completely disregard any lessons from such, and instead seek continued refuge in Fantasyland at your pleasure. 😉

 

[EastUS1]

International Museum of women
 
 
 
This is part of your '5,000 years of tradition'.  Marriage has changed quite a bit.  It will change some more.

 
At what logical point then should the very term reasonably be made extinct?

 

[EastUS1]

Mariage where a woman was property does that show sanctity?

 
 
"sanctity?" We're possibly now intruding into the religious realm, since I can find no defintional notions that at all remove, rather than reinforce religious involvement with the term? 😉  OK then. Perhaps you should address that question to any Muslims you might know...An idea that's seriously and not whimsically offered here. For that matter; you could also inquire as their notions concerning the sanctity of gay marriage as well....Just sayin'...
 
With "sanctity": You might want to simply uphold Hindu notions instead, but then again, there's this troublesome notion: "Wife and husband are the two wheels of the life chariot." While we're busying ourselves completely redefining Marriage, maybe we should also greatly expand (or simply eliminate) all existent definitions of "Wife and husband" as well, one must suppose...?"